打的目的是? Bivalent booster 对XBB Variant infection 的研究: Bivalent booster 4% effective vs. XBB infection 只有4%的有效性. Preprint Paper link: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v5.full.pdf Additional unusual findings: "possible immune imprinting resulting in increased risk of infection for those who are highly vaccinated" 打的多的还更容易感染. 打不打自己决定巴.LOL
楼主你自己搜一下effectiveness of bivalent vaccine, 有很多正规的科学研究论文啊，不要太相信网上个别人的所谓真事。 这是NEJM今年二月份的一篇论文： On August 31, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech bivalent Covid-19 vaccines, each containing equal amounts of mRNA encoding the spike protein from the ancestral strain and the spike protein from the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant, for emergency use as a single booster dose at least 2 months after primary or booster vaccination.1 The FDA authorizations were based on nonclinical data for these two bivalent vaccines, safety and immunogenicity data for bivalent vaccines containing mRNA from the BA.1 lineage of the omicron variant, and safety and effectiveness data for the monovalent mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.1 Since September 1, these two bivalent mRNA vaccines have replaced their monovalent counterparts as booster doses for persons 12 years of age or older in the United States and in other countries. Here, we report data from a large cohort study on the effectiveness of these two bivalent vaccines against severe infection with omicron BA.4.6, BA.5, BQ.1, and BQ.1.1. The data sources for this study have been described elsewhere.2-4 We focused on new data collected over 99 days during which bivalent boosters were administered, from September 1 to December 8, 2022, and over the preceding 99 days during which monovalent boosters were administered, from May 25 to August 31, 2022 (see the Supplemental Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). During the period from May 25 to August 31, a total of 292,659 participants among the 6,242,259 who were eligible received monovalent boosters, and 61 of 1896 reported Covid-19–related hospitalizations and 23 of 690 reported Covid-19–related deaths occurred after receipt of the booster; during the period from September 1 to December 8, a total of 1,070,136 participants among the 6,283,483 who were eligible received bivalent boosters, and 57 of 1093 reported Covid-19–related hospitalizations and 17 of 514 reported Covid-19–related deaths occurred after receipt of the booster (Tables S1 and S2 in the Supplementary Appendix). We fit the Cox regression model with a time-varying hazard ratio for severe infection (defined as infection resulting in hospitalization or death) for a single booster dose (i.e., first booster vs. primary vaccination only, second booster vs. first booster, or third booster vs. second booster) with adjustment for the baseline characteristics shown in Table S1 (see the Supplemental Methods section). We defined vaccine effectiveness as 1 minus the hazard ratio, multiplied by 100. This vaccine effectiveness indicates the additional benefit of receiving a single booster dose rather than the effectiveness as compared with being unvaccinated. Estimates of Effectiveness of One Monovalent or Bivalent Booster Dose against Severe Omicron Infection. The results are shown in Table 1 and Figures S2 and S3. Booster effectiveness peaked at approximately 4 weeks and waned afterward. For all participants 12 years of age or older, vaccine effectiveness against severe infection resulting in hospitalization over days 15 to 99 after receipt of one monovalent booster dose was 25.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], –0.2 to 44.2), and the corresponding vaccine effectiveness for one bivalent booster dose was 58.7% (95% CI, 43.7 to 69.8); the difference in vaccine effectiveness against this outcome between the bivalent booster and the monovalent booster was 33.5 percentage points (95% CI, 2.9 to 62.1). Vaccine effectiveness against severe infection resulting in hospitalization or death was 24.9% (95% CI, 1.4 to 42.8) for one monovalent booster dose and 61.8% (95% CI, 48.2 to 71.8) for one bivalent booster dose; the difference in vaccine effectiveness against this outcome between the bivalent booster and the monovalent booster was 36.9 percentage points (95% CI, 12.6 to 64.3) (Fig. S3 and Table 1). We obtained similar vaccine effectiveness estimates when the analysis was restricted to participants who were 18 years of age or older or 65 years of age or older, to participants who received an mRNA vaccine as their primary vaccine, or to previously uninfected participants (Table 1). In addition, estimates of vaccine effectiveness were similar for the Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech boosters and similar among the first, second, and third booster doses (Table 1). Bivalent boosters provided substantial additional protection against severe omicron infection in persons who had previously been vaccinated or boosted, although the effectiveness waned over time. The effectiveness of bivalent boosters was higher than that of monovalent boosters. We adjusted for measured confounders, including vaccination history, previous infection, and demographic variables. However, estimates of booster effectiveness would be biased if boosted persons were more likely or less likely to seek Covid-19 testing than nonboosted persons. For this reason, we focused on severe infection, which was more likely to be reported than mild infection. Very strong unmeasured confounders would be required in order to fully explain away the observed effectiveness of bivalent boosters. Dan-Yu Lin, Ph.D. Yangjianchen Xu, B.S. Yu Gu, B.S. Donglin Zeng, Ph.D. University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC [email protected] Bradford Wheeler, M.P.H. Hayley Young, M.P.H. Shadia K. Sunny, M.D., Ph.D. Zack Moore, M.D., M.P.H. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Raleigh, NC
另一篇论文的结果： The investigators found that the bivalent booster had a relative vaccine effectiveness of 52% against symptomatic BA.5 infection and 48% against symptomatic XBB/XBB.1.5 infection, when administered two to three months previously, compared with patients who did not receive a bivalent booster. 来源：https://www.idse.net/Covid-19/Article/02-23/COVID-COVID-19-Vaccination-Boosters-Bivalent-Booster-Omicron-XBB/69613#:~:text=The%20investigators%20found%20that%20the,%25%20against%20symptomatic%20XBB%2FXBB.
另一篇论文的结果： The investigators found that the bivalent booster had a relative vaccine effectiveness of 52% against symptomatic BA.5 infection and 48% against symptomatic XBB/XBB.1.5 infection, when administered two to three months previously, compared with patients who did not receive a bivalent booster. 来源：https://www.idse.net/Covid-19/Article/02-23/COVID-COVID-19-Vaccination-Boosters-Bivalent-Booster-Omicron-XBB/69613#:~:text=The%20investigators%20found%20that%20the,%25%20against%20symptomatic%20XBB%2FXBB. cintiman 发表于 2023-04-30 21:41
你不会是来坑楼主的巴?他爸妈都>70,然后是近期要来,还有基础病.你提供的第一个是for BA.4.6, BA.5, BQ.1, and BQ.1.1. 现在这几各个variant加一块都没有1%. https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/raj.rajnarayanan/viz/USAVariantDB/VariantDashboard 第二个就更不适合搂住了.你自己看看你连接上文章的 Case-patients的 人群: Case-patients were persons who received a positive laboratory-based NAAT result classified as SGTF (BA.5-related) or SGTP (XBB/XBB.1.5-related); control-patients were those who received a negative NAAT result. Tests among persons fulfilling any of following criteria were excluded from analyses: 1) presence of an immunocompromising condition††; 2) unvaccinated or receipt of only 1 COVID-19 vaccine dose; 3) receipt of a non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine; 4) receipt of >4 monovalent mRNA doses if aged ≥50 years or >3 monovalent doses if aged 18–49 years; or 5) receipt of only 2 mRNA doses, with the second dose received <4 months before the SARS-CoV-2 test. exclude了各种样本才折腾出48%的值,还是relative vaccine effectiveness, 不是absolute vaccine effectiveness. XBB1.16免意逃意比XBB1.5还要严重.前俩天又detect出了XBB2.3.这个不但比XBB1.16免意逃意还厉害,还有delta的至病性.现在病毒界都在讨论这个2.3的严重后果.你还拿早就过期的结果给搂住.反正她爸妈出事你不用负责.
打的目的是? Bivalent booster 对XBB Variant infection 的研究: Bivalent booster 4% effective vs. XBB infection 只有4%的有效性. Preprint Paper link: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v5.full.pdf Additional unusual findings: "possible immune imprinting resulting in increased risk of infection for those who are highly vaccinated" 打的多的还更容易感染. 打不打自己决定巴.LOL
能回复出这样的话来才是脑残。你没什么可以offer的信息可以把嘴闭上。这么说话伤你的阴德。下面的人起码给了我信息和链接，我可以看了以后再做决定。我有个同事得了三次新冠，有一次严重到住院了，就是始终都不肯打疫苗的还骂人脑残的那种。
谢谢链接，我看看一下
最新出来的变种XBB1.16免疫逃意厉害,如果你担心你爸妈被感染,可以考率一下N95口罩如果不兴被感染,就上药.或者先等这波XBB1.16过了在让他们过来.你看上面的图,到XBB以后Effectiveness就是negative的了,打了比没打还要容易感染.
现在世代，我选择信身边的案例，虽然在历史长河微乎其微，甚至忽略不计，但是真实发生，政府给的统计数据，我选择不信。
现在流行的变种可能是要担心一下,昨天刚好看到王吉贤发的视频 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBWk7N3OBFU 视频里他也提到了他打了俩针科兴,说是很严重,但他老婆和老婆一大家没打,症状很轻.你可以看一下这个视频再决定.可别打了反而更糟糕了.最可行的就是等这波过了再说,安全更重要.
那人回你是好心，你不为父母跟进新的信息还骂人，要根据一个同事决定，那你就用自己家人证明自己的脑残呗。你那同事要是打了疫苗也可能早就死了呢。
有人打了四五针然后得新冠死了，家人说假如没打疫苗肯定早得早死了。有人打疫苗直接死了，家人说假如没打疫苗肯定早得新冠死的更快。。
下面那个Kim才是好心，放了最新的信息和文章来，我看了信息会自行判断。回复我脑残的那个人，除了恶意我没看到任何可以帮助我作判断的内容。他要是真的有想法可以像下面那样的人认真回答我。你懂得什么叫尊重别人吗？别人莫名其妙骂你脑残你觉得可以接受？
谢谢你的信息。我会跟他们商量，最近没有跟进新冠的信息了，我自己也得过所以没有再留心，很感谢你的文章
我父亲高龄加心脏病，医生直接告诉他不能打疫苗，哪种都不能打。
好的，刚刚也有人跟我文章，我们会跟我爸妈商量。他们蛮想过来补针，70多岁，我爸有点血压高，吃降压药。别的糖尿病什么的没有。
这是NEJM今年二月份的一篇论文：
On August 31, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech bivalent Covid-19 vaccines, each containing equal amounts of mRNA encoding the spike protein from the ancestral strain and the spike protein from the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant, for emergency use as a single booster dose at least 2 months after primary or booster vaccination.1 The FDA authorizations were based on nonclinical data for these two bivalent vaccines, safety and immunogenicity data for bivalent vaccines containing mRNA from the BA.1 lineage of the omicron variant, and safety and effectiveness data for the monovalent mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.1 Since September 1, these two bivalent mRNA vaccines have replaced their monovalent counterparts as booster doses for persons 12 years of age or older in the United States and in other countries. Here, we report data from a large cohort study on the effectiveness of these two bivalent vaccines against severe infection with omicron BA.4.6, BA.5, BQ.1, and BQ.1.1.
The data sources for this study have been described elsewhere.2-4 We focused on new data collected over 99 days during which bivalent boosters were administered, from September 1 to December 8, 2022, and over the preceding 99 days during which monovalent boosters were administered, from May 25 to August 31, 2022 (see the Supplemental Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). During the period from May 25 to August 31, a total of 292,659 participants among the 6,242,259 who were eligible received monovalent boosters, and 61 of 1896 reported Covid-19–related hospitalizations and 23 of 690 reported Covid-19–related deaths occurred after receipt of the booster; during the period from September 1 to December 8, a total of 1,070,136 participants among the 6,283,483 who were eligible received bivalent boosters, and 57 of 1093 reported Covid-19–related hospitalizations and 17 of 514 reported Covid-19–related deaths occurred after receipt of the booster (Tables S1 and S2 in the Supplementary Appendix).
We fit the Cox regression model with a time-varying hazard ratio for severe infection (defined as infection resulting in hospitalization or death) for a single booster dose (i.e., first booster vs. primary vaccination only, second booster vs. first booster, or third booster vs. second booster) with adjustment for the baseline characteristics shown in Table S1 (see the Supplemental Methods section). We defined vaccine effectiveness as 1 minus the hazard ratio, multiplied by 100. This vaccine effectiveness indicates the additional benefit of receiving a single booster dose rather than the effectiveness as compared with being unvaccinated.
Estimates of Effectiveness of One Monovalent or Bivalent Booster Dose against Severe Omicron Infection. The results are shown in Table 1 and Figures S2 and S3. Booster effectiveness peaked at approximately 4 weeks and waned afterward. For all participants 12 years of age or older, vaccine effectiveness against severe infection resulting in hospitalization over days 15 to 99 after receipt of one monovalent booster dose was 25.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], –0.2 to 44.2), and the corresponding vaccine effectiveness for one bivalent booster dose was 58.7% (95% CI, 43.7 to 69.8); the difference in vaccine effectiveness against this outcome between the bivalent booster and the monovalent booster was 33.5 percentage points (95% CI, 2.9 to 62.1). Vaccine effectiveness against severe infection resulting in hospitalization or death was 24.9% (95% CI, 1.4 to 42.8) for one monovalent booster dose and 61.8% (95% CI, 48.2 to 71.8) for one bivalent booster dose; the difference in vaccine effectiveness against this outcome between the bivalent booster and the monovalent booster was 36.9 percentage points (95% CI, 12.6 to 64.3) (Fig. S3 and Table 1). We obtained similar vaccine effectiveness estimates when the analysis was restricted to participants who were 18 years of age or older or 65 years of age or older, to participants who received an mRNA vaccine as their primary vaccine, or to previously uninfected participants (Table 1). In addition, estimates of vaccine effectiveness were similar for the Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech boosters and similar among the first, second, and third booster doses (Table 1).
Bivalent boosters provided substantial additional protection against severe omicron infection in persons who had previously been vaccinated or boosted, although the effectiveness waned over time. The effectiveness of bivalent boosters was higher than that of monovalent boosters.
We adjusted for measured confounders, including vaccination history, previous infection, and demographic variables. However, estimates of booster effectiveness would be biased if boosted persons were more likely or less likely to seek Covid-19 testing than nonboosted persons. For this reason, we focused on severe infection, which was more likely to be reported than mild infection. Very strong unmeasured confounders would be required in order to fully explain away the observed effectiveness of bivalent boosters.
Dan-Yu Lin, Ph.D. Yangjianchen Xu, B.S. Yu Gu, B.S. Donglin Zeng, Ph.D. University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC [email protected]
Bradford Wheeler, M.P.H. Hayley Young, M.P.H. Shadia K. Sunny, M.D., Ph.D. Zack Moore, M.D., M.P.H. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Raleigh, NC
The investigators found that the bivalent booster had a relative vaccine effectiveness of 52% against symptomatic BA.5 infection and 48% against symptomatic XBB/XBB.1.5 infection, when administered two to three months previously, compared with patients who did not receive a bivalent booster.
来源：https://www.idse.net/Covid-19/Article/02-23/COVID-COVID-19-Vaccination-Boosters-Bivalent-Booster-Omicron-XBB/69613#:~:text=The%20investigators%20found%20that%20the,%25%20against%20symptomatic%20XBB%2FXBB.
你不会是来坑楼主的巴?他爸妈都>70,然后是近期要来,还有基础病.你提供的第一个是for BA.4.6, BA.5, BQ.1, and BQ.1.1. 现在这几各个variant加一块都没有1%.
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/raj.rajnarayanan/viz/USAVariantDB/VariantDashboard
第二个就更不适合搂住了.你自己看看你连接上文章的 Case-patients的 人群: Case-patients were persons who received a positive laboratory-based NAAT result classified as SGTF (BA.5-related) or SGTP (XBB/XBB.1.5-related); control-patients were those who received a negative NAAT result. Tests among persons fulfilling any of following criteria were excluded from analyses: 1) presence of an immunocompromising condition††; 2) unvaccinated or receipt of only 1 COVID-19 vaccine dose; 3) receipt of a non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccine; 4) receipt of >4 monovalent mRNA doses if aged ≥50 years or >3 monovalent doses if aged 18–49 years; or 5) receipt of only 2 mRNA doses, with the second dose received <4 months before the SARS-CoV-2 test.
exclude了各种样本才折腾出48%的值,还是relative vaccine effectiveness, 不是absolute vaccine effectiveness.
XBB1.16免意逃意比XBB1.5还要严重.前俩天又detect出了XBB2.3.这个不但比XBB1.16免意逃意还厉害,还有delta的至病性.现在病毒界都在讨论这个2.3的严重后果.你还拿早就过期的结果给搂住.反正她爸妈出事你不用负责.
我家老人在国内科兴打过2针，21年来的时候在家庭医生建议下重新打美国的针，先2针，再2针booster。 撑到去年底还是得了。但症状跟打针的症状差不太多。 我建议带老人去医生那里体检看看医生怎么说。
别劝了，当心被骂，我朋友妈妈也是打了科兴来美国打了辉瑞，马上面瘫了几个月
我认识一沙特人，他说叔叔70多，很健康，腿脚很好，打完左腿血栓动不了需要坐轮椅。。。。